Re: MARID back from the grave?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 





On Thursday, February 24, 2005 11:55:20 PM +0100 Henrik Levkowetz <henrik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

on 2005-02-24 7:23 pm Jeffrey Hutzelman said the following:
[...]
Personally, I think it's more useful to keep the existing filename for
the  life of the document, and that is the practice we have been
following in  the Kerberos WG since its creation (well before I became
chair).  We have  just had an RFC published from an I-D named as an
individual submission,  and the work item we're currently spending most
of our cycles on is  something we inherited from CAT which still has a
draft-cat-* filename.  Ironically, the only confusion I'm aware of is in
the part of Henrik's  excellent WG status pages, which don't recognize
that these documents  belong to us (I understand he's working on a way
to fix that).

Fixed as of today for active drafts. Unfortunately, this is based on the information in 1id-index.txt, which only gives the draft -> WG association for active drafts. Currently I don't have any good source of draft -> WG associations for published, replaced or expired drafts.

Talk about great timing! Thanks.

-- Jeff

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]